Pope Francis calls for abolishing death penalty and life imprisonment

[SWolf]

I have held to the opinion that it is not possible to safely incarcerate a few people. There are still some who will perpetrate violence within prison or without. We could reduce this number to zero if we were able to disregard constitutional protections and treat this class with any all restrictions needed to isolate them. So, for the longest I held out the need for the death penalty on a very limited basis.

I no longer hold to this position precisely because of the toxic culture of death that we live in.

I ministered at a juvenile detention facility for several years. While the level of violence didn’t come close to some maximum security prisons, you could tell some of the kids were already stone-cold criminals. The facility officials had to separate some gangs as, if they were in the same room, would murder each other. These were 14-15 year-olds. I have no doubt many will go out, commit an assault, and get locked away in an adult prison next. We did what we could, ss one of the juvy ministers said, “If we can avoid one kid pulling the trigger, our efforts weren’t for naught.”

Overall, I agree that you can be for the death penalty and be a Catholic in good standing, but have to agree with your culture of death statement. More than ever, the pro-life movement has to be 100 percent anti-death, whether it is euthanasia, abortion, death-penalty, etc. I admit I can’t swallow it for the simple reason that I’ve seen the hell these kids have lived through, and want every single moment necessary for them to even have a slight change of heart.

Will hardened criminals victimize others, even in prison? Yes. Would the death penalty alleviate some of this? Yes. I still can’t support it, but I also can’t condemn those who do.

 

[LongingSoul]

It appears not having the death penalty, or speaking against it, would be in contradiction to that teaching.

You seem to be interpreting the scripture reference overly literally. Aquinas uses it to address a culture or community relevant phenomena. What we are experiencing as societies now is an unnatural entitlement to ‘play God’ with human life. Abortion is esteemed as a pro-woman, pro-freedom solution to unplanned or imperfect pregnancy. Euthanasia is esteemed as a ‘charitable’ and humane solution to pain. IVF is esteemed as pro-life regardless of the number of living beings extinguished in the process and the utility mentality to conception. These are solutions that society in general applaud without any sensitivity to the murder involved. Our insensitivity to the mysterious value of human life makes it impossible to conceive of capital punishment in a holy sense.

Where I live, the death penalty was abolished nearly a century ago. It was obvious to the communal mind back then that in an unjust environment, using death as a punishment did not reflect humane values. In that sort of environment death engendered blood lust that was contrary to the common good.

That’s what Catholic teaching is addressing now by her persistant calls to abolish the death penalty around the world. The death penalty (the uprooting of the cockle) is further damaging the good rather than edifying them.

 

[Ender]

St. Ambrose used it here:From the point of view of our faith, no one ought to slay a person who in the course of nature still would have time for repentance up to the very moment of his death. A guilty man provided a premature punishment had not deprived him of life could well procure forgiveness by redeeming himself by an act of repentance, however belated.

So, how to proceed? In response to your citation of Ambrose I said:The fact that God protected Cain from being killed by others has never been used by the church to form her position on capital punishment. That position belongs to Gn 9:6 (and Rm 13:1-4).
To which you responded: “Not denied by me.” What is being debated here? Notwithstanding that we both recognize the Cain story is not central to the church’s doctrine on capital punishment I’ll try to address Ambrose’s comments because even though his position was not that of the church, he is a Doctor of the Church and his thoughts deserve attention.

According to one translator, the Cain and Abel homilies were written shortly after becoming a bishop. In referring to the Paradise homilies (written about the same time) he said: It would be difficult to determine what changes or modifications, if any, the author would have made in the treatment of this subject at a time when, presumably, his judgment was more mature.
I accept that Ambrose opposed the use of capital punishment. He did not, however, condemn it. In a response to an inquiry (several years later) from a Christian judge about using capital punishment (Letter 25) he wrote in recognition of the competing obligations:And indeed I should fear to reply to it, being checked on the one hand by the obligation of the trust committed to you for the maintenance of the laws, and on the other by claims of mercy and clemency…
He continues by explaining how this dilemma is resolved.…had you not in this matter the Apostle’s authority that he who judgeth beareth not the sword in vain, for he is the avenger of God, upon him that doeth evil.
In citing Rm 13:4 he justifies capital punishment, even though he does not prefer it. He goes on to write:*You see therefore both what power your commission gives you, and also whither mercy would lead you; you will be excused if you do it, and praised if you do it not.
*“You will be excuse if you do it” (sentence men to death) because the authority to do so comes from the Apostle (Paul) himself.

Ender

 

[Tomdstone]

There are two things to consider here. The first is that teachings such as CCC 2267 have to be interpreted, understood. What exactly does it mean? It is not a question of choosing between me and the church but of between me and you. Second, when choosing between two possibilities it is usually better to take the one with the more sustainable argument.
This is an example of the point I just made above. The power to loose and bind has indeed been given to popes…so what does that mean? Well, it doesn’t mean what you think it does since it does not include the authority to decide what should or should not be moral.The power to “bind and loose” connotes the authority to absolve sins, to pronounce doctrinal judgements, and to make disciplinary decisions in the Church. (CCC 553)
Yes, as a prudential judgment, not as a moral choice. A stronger position would allow you to rebut my statements; you wouldn’t be reduced to calling for them to be ignored.

Ender

You ripped the first part of my sentence out of the whole sentence I wrote, which gives a distorted picture of what I actually wrote. Why not quote a person’s complete sentence rather that ripping out a few words and quoting that?

 

[LongingSoul]

You ripped the first part of my sentence out of the whole sentence I wrote, which gives a distorted picture of what I actually wrote. Why not quote a person’s complete sentence rather that ripping out a few words and quoting that?

It’s called ‘quote mining’ and I wish it could be banned from this forum or at least a suspend-able infraction ! It ruins perfectly good debates all the time.

 

[CrossofChrist]

What is being debated here?

I’m really not sure…maybe something in my next post?

Notwithstanding that we both recognize the Cain story is not central to the church’s doctrine on capital punishment I’ll try to address Ambrose’s comments because even though his position was not that of the church, he is a Doctor of the Church and his thoughts deserve attention.

I accept that the story of Cain/Abel isn’t what the Church basis the morality of capital punishment on, hence it plays a periphery role in all this, but it certainly can be/has been used to oppose the application of CP. The phrasing “his position was not that of the church” is disconcerting to me because it can lead one to believe you mean something akin to “his position was held in contrast or in opposition to the church”. I don’t think you meant that, though.

 

[CrossofChrist]

There could be…but suggesting that incarceration is expiatory is idle speculation. We know that a person can expiate the sin even of murder by accepting the death penalty as a just punishment.

Reforming a criminal would give him an opportunity to expiate his sin.

To make amends for the sin of murder you have to repair with your whole life. No doubt capital punishment makes it a quicker process, but it’s not always about convenience.

It is an affront to a man’s dignity not to hold him fully accountable for his actions.But it is a truth of faith, also confirmed by our experience and reason, that the human person is free. This truth cannot be disregarded, in order to place the blame for individuals’ sins on external factors such as structures, systems or other people. Above all,* this would be to deny the person’s dignity*** and freedom, which are manifested–even though in a negative and disastrous way also in this responsibility for sin committed. Hence there is nothing so personal and untransferable in each individual as merit for virtue or responsibility for sin. (JPII Reconciliatio et Paenitentia)

If capital punishment is the only way to expiate sins, it seems there would only be rare circumstances where it is best not to use capital punishment (in contrast with JPII).

OTOH, JPII himself argued against capital punishment because he thought that in our day abolition of CP would be “more in conformity to the dignity of the human person”, or IOW, would better show the dignity of the human person.

Reforming the criminal is the condition for making expiation possible, and really only true justice can come about with the reform of the criminal (whether or not he gets executed). Aquinas says so discussing “loving the sinner” in his Summa: Moreover the death inflicted by the judge profits the sinner, if he be converted, unto the expiation of his crime.

But what’s the point of reforming the sinner (in the case of murder or some other incredibly grievous crime e.g public desecration of the Eucharist) for the purpose of reintegrating him into the community–something emphasized in many recent Church documents–if there is no possibility of expiation?

Pope Francis (granted, not necessarily speaking about CP): The Church, therefore, proposes a humanizing, genuinely reconciling justice, a justice that leads the criminal, through educational development and brave atonement, to rehabilitation and reintegration into the community.

Or what point is JPII making when he says the following in Evangelium Vitae?

Public authority must redress the violation of personal and social rights by imposing on the offender an adequate punishment for the crime, as a condition for the offender to regain the exercise of his or her freedom. In this way authority also fulfils the purpose of defending public order and ensuring people’s safety, while at the same time offering the offender an incentive and help to change his or her behaviour and be rehabilitated. 47

It is clear that, for these purposes to be achieved, the nature and extent of the punishment must be carefully evaluated and decided upon, and ought not go to the extreme of executing the offender except in cases of absolute necessity: in other words, when it would not be possible otherwise to defend society.

The Intervention you cite is rather badly argued. I wouldn’t put much currency in what was said.

I don’t think so. But in any case, the reason I brought it up was because it showed that reasoning behind being against the death penalty was that abolishing it better showed forth human dignity to modern society, for various reasons.

Not that the death penalty is per se immoral, just that for prudential reasons (more in keeping with the concrete conditions of the common good and are more in conformity to the dignity of the human person) it is better not to use.

 

[CrossofChrist]

Your disagreement is . . . ?

The use of the death penalty today contributes to the culture of death. Not because it is immoral per se but because of other historical circumstances.

 

[CrossofChrist]

I think I’m going to bail out of this discussion, but I’ll end by saying the following about my main points which I’ve mentioned a number of times:
2267 doesn’t say anything contrary to the traditional teaching of the Church. “only possible way of defending human lives” isn’t speaking about mere physical defense, but about protecting the common good (something made up of individuals), which contains moral, spiritual and religious, and physical elements.

To prove my point, the Catechism (1905, 1906) says this about the common good:

In keeping with the social nature of man,** the good of each individual is necessarily related to the common good**, which in turn can be defined only in reference to the human person:

Do not live entirely isolated, having retreated into yourselves, as if you were already justified, but gather instead to seek the common good together.25

By common good is to be understood "the sum total of social conditions which allow people, either as groups or as individuals, to reach their fulfillment more fully and more easily."26 The common good concerns the life of all.

If we needed further proof, Ratzinger said Evangelium Vitae’s part on the death penalty–which 2267 was based off of–is concerned with the self-defense of society.

So human lives can’t be defended unless the common good is defended.
Since capital punishment is an act that affects the common good, just like other punishments for crimes, every use of CP or non-use affects the common good. Therefore, to defend the common good one must use his or her prudence in deciding whether or not capital punishment should be used. The decision made is (if it is to be a moral application or non application of a punishment) the one that the individual thinks best serves the common good, or in other words, the decision made is the “only possible way of defending human lives against the unjust aggressor”. This is because the other decision would not be better in defending human lives against the unjust aggressor, since it would go contrary to the common good.
Capital punishment today is rejected by the Catholic Church because not using it better shows forth the dignity of the human person. Yes, it’s a prudential judgment, but considering how strongly the Church has spoken out against CP it can’t be ignored. So much so that Pope Francis says JPII and the Catechism condemn the death penalty. Certainly not its use per se, but in its application today for various prudential reasons.

I agree with this assessment.

---

That’s all for this thread! God bless!

 

[Ridgerunner]

Joran Van Der Sloot was convicted of murdering a young Peruvian woman for her money. Likely he killed Natalee Holloway for reasons we don’t know. He was sentenced to 28 years in prison. I don’t know if Peruvian sentences of 28 years really mean 28 years, or whether (as in the U.S.) they mean far less.

I realize the Pope is the Pope. But still, I wonder when it will be safe for young women for Joran Van Der Sloot to emerge from prison?

When will it be safe to free Charles Manson?

 

[graciew]

The recidivism rate for those released from prison is 80% during the first 5 years after release.

So who will accurately determine there are no longer aggressors before we let them out?

See 2265 Preserving the common good requires rendering the unjust aggressor unable to inflict harm."

IT seems like you and the Pope are advising the opposite.

Please review:

Catechism & State Protection
prodpinnc.blogspot.com/2014/10/catechism-state-protection.html

Dudleysharp , Francis is addressing representatives of the International Association of Penal Law.
If you wish to go to the beginning of the thread you can read the article and his words.
We have " not been invited" to that meeting but we take the opportunity to grow learning about it here.
Throughout the thread you can read different perpectives and experience ,nobody is " off side" in this game We are all trying within the rules to see how best we can do to bring peace as we possibly can into our societies.
As for " you and the Pope" …well, he is a kind man…I 'm sure he can live with it.

 

[CaptFun]

Joran Van Der Sloot was convicted of murdering a young Peruvian woman for her money. Likely he killed Natalee Holloway for reasons we don’t know. He was sentenced to 28 years in prison. I don’t know if Peruvian sentences of 28 years really mean 28 years, or whether (as in the U.S.) they mean far less.

I realize the Pope is the Pope. But still, I wonder when it will be safe for young women for Joran Van Der Sloot to emerge from prison?

When will it be safe to free Charles Manson?

Yes. The Church prefers the virtue of mercy to the virtue of justice (prioritywise - it teaches the importance of BOTH of course). AND the Pope (whoever is Pope) will likely always do that. But when we get to particulars … lavishing mercy upon the guilty while denying justice to the victims of horrible crimes can go too far.

Given this thread’s headline one would think the Pope is calling out “all ye all ye in free …” for an end to prisons. :dts: I don’t think so. I HOPE not!

I will offer this minimal counsel from the laity if the Vatican monitors Catholic public opinion at all:

Please don’t preside at Manson’s upcoming wedding - especially if he DOES get out.

 

[LongingSoul]

Yes. The Church prefers the virtue of mercy to the virtue of justice (prioritywise - it teaches the importance of BOTH of course). AND the Pope (whoever is Pope) will likely always do that. But when we get to particulars … lavishing mercy upon the guilty while denying justice to the victims of horrible crimes can go too far.

Given this thread’s headline one would think the Pope is calling out “all ye all ye in free …” for an end to prisons. :dts: I don’t think so. I HOPE not!

I will offer this minimal counsel from the laity if the Vatican monitors Catholic public opinion at all:

Please don’t preside at Manson’s upcoming wedding - especially if he DOES get out.

The Church is addressing general rules/general laws. It will not make the justice system impotent in dealing with case by case decisions. I would presume Charles Manson will continue to be permanently incarcerated based on the psychological evidence relating to psychopaths.

 

[Tomdstone]

I would presume Charles Manson will continue to be permanently incarcerated based on the psychological evidence relating to psychopaths.

But will that be fair to his future wife?

 

[Ender]

You ripped the first part of my sentence out of the whole sentence I wrote, which gives a distorted picture of what I actually wrote. Why not quote a person’s complete sentence rather that ripping out a few words and quoting that?

I extract the part that is relevant to my comment, which is not to say the rest isn’t significant, only that I’m not going to deal with it. I don’t think anything I didn’t include in this case changes the meaning of either your comment or my response. I wasn’t trying to distort your comment; I was just addressing one part of it.

Ender

 

[Ender]

I accept that the story of Cain/Abel isn’t what the Church basis the morality of capital punishment on, hence it plays a periphery role in all this, but it certainly can be/has been used to oppose the application of CP. The phrasing “his position was not that of the church” is disconcerting to me because it can lead one to believe you mean something akin to “his position was held in contrast or in opposition to the church”. I don’t think you meant that, though.

I was trying to deal with Ambrose’s comment by something more than dismissing it as irrelevant. It is clear from both your citation and mine that he opposed using capital punishment. I wanted it to be equally clear that his opposition was prudential, not doctrinal. If that is acceptable then there is no conflict with what the church taught since one is doctrine and the other is the application of doctrine.

Regarding his belief that executing someone cuts him off from the possibility of repentance, that seems more problematic.*“The fate of the wicked being open to conversion so long as they live does not preclude their being open also to the just punishment of death.” *(Aquinas, Summa Contra Gentiles Bk III, 147)

*"To go on to assert that a life should not be ended because that would remove the possibility of making expiation, is to ignore the great truth that capital punishment is itself expiatory…*The most irreligious aspect of this argument against capital punishment is that it denies its expiatory value which, from a religious point of view, is of the highest importance because it can include a final consent to give up the greatest of all worldly goods. This fits exactly with St. Thomas’s opinion that as well as canceling out any debt that the criminal owes to civil society, capital punishment can cancel all punishment due in the life to come." (Romano Amerio)
Whether this is an adequate response to Ambrose or not, I didn’t want to discount his views as meaningless.

Ender

 

[Ender]

Reforming a criminal would give him an opportunity to expiate his sin. …To make amends for the sin of murder you have to repair with your whole life.

This raises an interesting point, which may take us off into the weeds, but is certainly indirectly relevant. Does sincere repentance and the amendment of ones life cancel out the debt owed for sin? I don’t think it does. If someone commits a murder, fully repents of it, and goes on to lead an exemplary life, is his debt erased? No. His life may be turned around but that does not expiate his sin. Punishment is still required.* At first sight, to speak of punishment after sacramental forgiveness might seem inconsistent. The Old Testament, however, shows us how normal it is to undergo reparative punishment after forgiveness. God, after describing himself as “a God merciful and gracious … forgiving iniquity and transgression and sin”, adds: “yet not without punishing” (Ex 34: 6-7). In the Second Book of Samuel, King David’s humble confession after his grave sin obtains God’s forgiveness (cf. 2 Sm 12: 13), but not the prevention of the foretold chastisement (cf. ibid., 12: 11; 16: 21). God’s fatherly love does not rule out punishment, even if the latter must always be understood as part of a merciful justice that re-establishes the violated order for the sake of man’s own good *(JPII, General Audience 1999)

If capital punishment is the only way to expiate sins, it seems there would only be rare circumstances where it is best not to use capital punishment (in contrast with JPII).

True, but as this question has not been addressed before I have no ready response.

OTOH, JPII himself argued against capital punishment because he thought that in our day abolition of CP would be “more in conformity to the dignity of the human person”, or IOW, would better show the dignity of the human person.

I can accept the IOW explanation if by it you mean this is the way it is generally perceived. I cannot accept it if you interpret it to mean that using capital punishment actually conflicts with human dignity.

cont…

Ender

 

[Ender]

cont…

Reforming the criminal is the condition for making expiation possible, and really only true justice can come about with the reform of the criminal (whether or not he gets executed). Aquinas says so discussing “loving the sinner” in his Summa: Moreover the death inflicted by the judge profits the sinner, if he be converted, unto the expiation of his crime.

Justice is not conditional on the acceptance of his punishment by the criminal. Justice and rehabilitation are both valid objectives but they are also distinct and separate. It is certainly true that expiation requires repentance, but justice does not.

But what’s the point of reforming the sinner (in the case of murder or some other incredibly grievous crime e.g public desecration of the Eucharist) for the purpose of reintegrating him into the community–something emphasized in many recent Church documents–if there is no possibility of expiation?

I don’t think the primary purpose of reforming someone is to reintegrate him back into the community. I should think it would be for his eternal salvation. The question of expiation is worth exploring further.

Or what point is JPII making when he says the following in Evangelium Vitae?Public authority must redress the violation of personal and social rights by imposing on the offender an adequate punishment for the crime, as a condition for the offender to regain the exercise of his or her freedom. In this way authority also fulfils the purpose of defending public order and ensuring people’s safety, while at the same time offering the offender an incentive and help to change his or her behaviour and be rehabilitated.

As a general statement of the relationship between crime and punishment there is nothing new here. No one prior to Francis ever suggested that people who have committed especially heinous crimes should be released back into the community anyway, so the idea that they were going to regain their freedom outside a penitentiary does not seem to be part of JPII’s thinking.

Not that the death penalty is per se immoral, just that for prudential reasons (more in keeping with the concrete conditions of the common good and are more in conformity to the dignity of the human person) it is better not to use.

If you phrase it “perceived to be more in conformity to the dignity of the human person” then I agree.

Ender

 

[Ender]

Yes. The Church prefers the virtue of mercy to the virtue of justice (prioritywise - it teaches the importance of BOTH of course).

I agreed with most of your comments, just not this one. As you say, both mercy and justice are virtues, but one does not trump the other…and if it is true that one is higher than the other I think the better case can be made that that position belongs to justice.Since justice is a cardinal virtue, other secondary virtues, such as mercy, liberality and the like are connected with it (Aquinas)
Ender

 

[Ender]

It’s called ‘quote mining’ and I wish it could be banned from this forum or at least a suspend-able infraction ! It ruins perfectly good debates all the time.

Why don’t you take this up with one of the moderators? That way we’ll find out if my editing or your insults are the more objectionable actions.

Ender